Montgomery Burns

Of course. That is what the voters vote them in for - not to ask France's permission before you do anything with your foreign policy decisions. But deep down inside, Canada knows that if it was attacked (and Osama has said that Canada is #5 on his hitlist), the US would militarily (help) the attacked Canada. Vancouver is on the border, so it would be in the USA's best interest to aid Canada. Remember the hit the American economy took after 9-11? Just think if that had happened in Toronto. But that can change quickly. Although there are more democratic countries these days - there are still lots of dictator types ruling. Thugs like that respect only one thing: Power, especially militarily. I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I doubt that anyone is suggesting a "US type" military build-up. Just an increase to make the military more capable to defend itself. Australia has only 65% of Canada's population, but they have a stronger military than Canada. Of course they, like Canada have a large border to defend. It's kinda embarrassing when Martin gives a speech at the UN and only half of the other countries show up to listen to him. That tells you something about Canada's perceived importance in world affairs. Diplomatic power isn't as respected as much when it cannot be backed up militarily.

Well? Don't leave us hanging. Explain...or can't you?

Oh great. Just what Canada needs - an influx of loony leftists. More NDPers...

Canada should have a stronger military. Totalitarians respect one thing - power. I think that this has been part of the reason for the cooler relations between the Bush administration and Canada's Liberal Party. Canada should up their percentage of GDP that goes to the military and quit pushing their responsibilty off on the Americans. Plus Canada is a large country with a huge unprotected border to the south, and surrounded by sea to the east, west, and north. The country has lots of open borders to defend.

Don't be too hard on Black Dog. He, and much of the Canadian left, have been in a tizzy since the Fox News Channel came to Canada. They are fearful that their dearly beloved hardcore socialist state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC will lose even more ratings. The Communist Broadcasting Corporation has been openly attacking Fox News - once again showing the world that "tolerance" that the left is soooo noted for. I can see why the Fox News Channel is wildly popular in the US; it is so much better than its competitors. It actually is fair and balanced and *gasp* actually has as many conservatives as liberal. What a treat it is after listening to the lies and dirty tricks of the liberal media for years and years, from C-BS's phony memos, to CNN covering up Saddam's atrocities so they could keep their Baghdad bureau open. Then CNN's Eason Jordan resigned yesterday amid his outlandish accusations (with no proof!) of US troops targeting journalists for murder and torturing journalists. And who could ever forget CNN allowing two of John Kerry's advisors (James Carville and Paul Begala) to have their own show and promote the Kerry campaign; a blatant conflict of interest? After a 5 year ban by Canada's ruling Liberal Party, they were forced to allow the Fox News Channel into Canada after they showed their true intentions (the destgruction of the US as revenge for the fall of the USSR) by allowing Jihad TV (Al Jazeera) to broadcast in Canada. After that move, they no longer could keep Fox News out without openly admitting they were cheering for the Islamofascists to defeat the US. They could even call it Foxy News. Their female anchors are droolsville.

That's all Canada needs. More leftwing moonbats.

It was banned and the only garbage propaganda station is the state-run CBC - along with the CTV. Global is bearable. The CBC is like Pravda; Marxist propaganda, and about as exciting as Anne of Green Gables or the Beachcombers.

When Linda McQuaig takes a position on something, it's generally a good idea to run screaming in the opposite direction.

The ban against Fox News Channel in Canada was lifted last week by Canada's Liberal Party state-censor, the CRTC, after forcing Canadians to wait until the hurdle of putting the liberals through two elections - one in Canada and one in the US - were over. While Fox News Channel is the #1 cable news channel in the US by a huge margin (its primetime ratings are higher than CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC combined), it has been banned in Canada by the Liberal Party's state censor for years because they were concerned it allowed conservative viewpoints to leak into society, thereby ruining years of liberal-left media indoctrination, some of which was done by the state itself through the state-run CBC. In typical Soviet-style bureaucratic nonsense that goes on for thousands upon thousands of words, the state-run state-censors at the CRTC have released their decision this morning and it will take half the day to read it. Here's the link to it. Canada's liberals are foaming at the mouth because soon there will actually be conservatives on TV in Canada - which at this time are as rare as a Sasquatch sighting. Now Canadians will be able to watch spirited debate from both sides of the political sphere that passionately believe in their stances. What a difference that will be from watching the typical state-run CBC news show where it is 2 or 3 leftists discussing the news of the day or week, and simply nodding in agreement with each other.

NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004... According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday. Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers. Fox News had 9 of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's why Canada's CRTC (which is stacked with unelected liberal hacks) has banned Fox News from Canada. And for a great example of a hysterical leftie rant about Fox News Channel possibly coming to Canada, read this. Note the typical liberal condescendation this leftie has for the "unwashed masses" that watch Fox News. I tell ya, there's nothing funnier than a good leftie rant. They're pure comedy gold.

Eureka, regarding your CBC tale. The National Missile Defence system, as it is properly known, is not "Bush's missile plan", as the Canadian state-run CBC's Larry Zolf calls it (and nor is it called "stars wars", Larry, which you know is a term used by its opponents implying it is an scary science fiction fantasy designed solely to protect your arch enemy the Americans and conservatives and pro-free-trade non-government-owned corporations on the backs of the workers). I think the People's Web Site, state-run as it is, should get the facts straight, even if they do find it necessary to run an official state opinion as posted by Zolf. The defense program in question (only by liberals) is a scaled-down version of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative, from where liberals garnered the cool name "Star Wars", but which sadly for them was partly responsible for Ronald Reagan winning the cold war. However, in an article published in March of 2000 during Clinton's presidency, the CBC called it the "National Missile Defence system". They said it was designed to "defend the United States and its friends against missiles launched from rogue states and terrorists". Sounds clear and happy enough. But in an article published in 2003 after Bush was elected, the description morphed to "...designed to give the U.S. the power to protect itself... "; and appealing to the CBC's same official anti-Bush innuendo stylebook, "rogue states and terrorists" became "what the Bush administration refers to as 'rogue states.'". Later in the same article: "so-called rogue states". After 9/11, the CBC was no longer so sure there were rogue states. In much the same way, the CBC is so-called not a state-run liberal-left biased anti-American media joke.

That was for soemthing called Fox News-CANADA, not Fox News. It even said that in your indymidiot link. Don't you read the articles you link to? Yeah those big words like Bushitler and NO BLOOD FOR OIIIIILLLL are always confusing for me. Oh, and here is the application to broadcast Fox News Channel - the one you said hasn't even applied to import it to Canada. It is dated April 15/04. And you're still an idiot about Hitler/Mussolini not being socialists. As Ludwig Von Mises wrote: "The Nazis have not only imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power. They have copied much more. They have imported from Russia the one-party system and the privileged role of this party and its members in public life; the paramount position of the secret police; the organization of affiliated parties abroad which are employed in fighting their domestic governments and in sabotage and espionage, assisted by public funds and the protection of the diplomatic and consular service; the administrative execution and imprisonment of political adversaries; concentration camps; the punishment inflicted on the families of exiles; the methods of propaganda. They have borrowed from the Marxians even such absurdities as the mode of address, party comrade (Parteigenosse), derived from the Marxian comrade (Genosse), and the use of a military terminology for all items of civil and economic life. The question is not in which respects both systems are alike but in which they differ." The resemblances between Hitler and Stalin are inescapable. Both tyrannies relied on a desperate ideology of do-or-die confrontation. Both were obsessed by battle imagery: 'The dictatorships were military metaphors, founded to fight political war.' And despite the rhetoric about a fate-struggle between socialism and capitalism, the two economic systems converged strongly. Stalin's Russia permitted a substantial private sector, while Nazi Germany became rapidly dominated by state direction and state-owned industries. Just look at the policy manifesto of Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party: The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good. Therefore we demand: * That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. * Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material. * We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels. * We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. * We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. Sounds like the Liberal Party...or the Democrat Party, or the British Labour Party. Further, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, instituted pervasive supervision of German industry. And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler's Panzern as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel. You mock my sources, but I have mostly used Hitler's and Mussolini's very own writings. To claim that they were not socialists, is sheer lunacy.

Eureka, There is so much ignorance in your last post, that I don't know where to start. But I am tired and will let you "deal with it" as you claim that you will. I anxiously look forward to seeing if you actually will...or if you will disappear. Oh, and my source was the World Health Organization. For you to claim that Canada has a better healthcare system is sheer lunacy. As is your claim that Canada has lower taxes than the US. Hell, even the UK's Tax Freedom Day is 1 month earlier than Canada's. As is your claim that Europe is performing better economically then the USA. Even European economists lament why they can't compete with the USA economically. Your claim of the US having a net loss of jobs is laughable. Their unemployment rate is now at 5.4%. Also, Canada never had a 9/11 that wiped out 1 million jobs and hit the economy for $27 billion. As Dubya said...Bring.it.on.

I've read and seen that mentioned on TV many times. It took me about a second and a half to find this from Newsweek. I suppose you will call Newsweek a conservative magazine. The title: Martha Brant whines: Doesn't say much for you, then. I've been kicking your butt all day on this forum. What are you talking about? Every intelligence source in the world said Iraq had not gotten rid of their WMD. Even the last UNMOVIC report from March 6/03 - three months after the final deadline the UN set for Saddam's full disclosure and a mere 14 days before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire began - was full of such items as "Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist." No, it is apropos of your earlier comment. People do not flock to a country they hate that is full of people they hate. You really should read the article you linked to - from the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation - instead of just reading the headline. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with a screeching moonbat with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), like Sy Hersh? He is an avid Bush-hater who made a fool out of himself with his "it's a quagmire" statement 3 days before Baghdad fell. I don't think you know the definition of quagmire. It is hard. Bush always said it would be. He has never said it would be a cakewalk. But precarious and a predicament? I don't think so. 1000 casualties (combat and non-combat) in 1.5 years? At this rate, it will take the terrorists 210 years to knock off the US military in Iraq. Compare where Iraq is at this stage versus Japan and Germany at this stage after WWII. Mr. Lorentz is entitled to his opinion, but I would give more weight to the commanders in Iraq. Besides, his whole premise is based on the badwill the US is getting by civilians getting killed during fighting lately. However, it is the terrorists who have been killing more civilians lately and are losing support amongst the Iraqi people. Look at the last 2 cities the US cleaned out; both times they got significant tips and assistance from the Iraqi people who are fed up with the terrorists massacring Iraqi citizens. Um, no. Zogby had Gore ahead in Tennessee and we all know that Gore lost his home state. Zogby made its rep last election by being the only pollster to do a poll on the last weekend before the election - which was held on Tuesday. Zogby was able to report that Gore had rallied back from being behind because that Democrat slimeball released the story of Bush getting a DUI years back.

Like hell you have. I'll take the Sun over indymedia, which is what you previously linked to. Of course, you indymidiots love your "alternative news" (read: BS news, certainly not facts). Even your indymidiot link talks about Fox News Canada, not Fox News. Are CNN and CNBC required to have 35% Canadian content? No. Hmmm. Sounds like leftwing logic, except you want to exterminate whites and Christianity, not to mention your racist policies (affirmative action). What party had the largest percentage of votes to end Jim Crow? Republicans. What party was the President when the North went to war against the South? Abe Lincoln - a Republican. What party has a former member of the KKK in the Senate? The Democrats - Senator Byrd. Back in May 2000, then Finance Minister Paul Martin attended a fundraising dinner sponsored by the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (FACT). Martin attended the function with former cabinet minister Maria Minna even though he was warned by Canadian security agencies that FACT was a front for the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group that has been waging civil war in Sri Lanka since 1983. The Tigers big claim to fame is that they were the first group to use suicide bombers as a weapon. Martin’s answer to those who criticized his attendance at the FACT dinner was to call his critics, racists. Paul Martin also welcomed back the Khadrs--Canada’s first family of terrorism when Mommy Khadr brought little Abdul Karim back to the country that she despises for free medical treatment. Her little darling came out on the wrong end of a shootout with Pakistani forces last October. On the contrary, it is you who is the complete idiot for denying that they were socialists. There is surely no doubt that the man I am describing sounds very much like a mainstream Leftist by current standards. But who is the man concerned? It is a historically accurate description of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not only a socialist in his own day but he would even be a mainstream socialist in most ways today. I didn't mention Hitler's antisemitism above, but that too seems once again to have become mainstream among the Western-world Left in the early years of the 21st Century. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before private use). Educate yourself, son. Cripes, were you sleeping during history class while in school? I thought everyone knew that Hitler's Nazi Party was short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. As for Mussolini, let's take a look at what Mussolini himself published in 1935: And that was Mussolini quoting his own words from the early Fascist days. So while Mussolini had by that time (in his 30s) come to reject the Marxist idea of a class-war, he still saw himself as anti-bourgeois and as a saviour and leader of the workers. What modern-day Leftist could not identify with that? So he was a good union man like most Leftists today. Again a great Leftist hope and aspiration. The "Liberalism" he refers to here would, of course, be called "Neo-liberalism" today - the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today. Modern-day Leftists too seem to seek influence outside the normal democratic channels - from strikes and demonstrations to often successful attempts to get the courts - instead of votes by the people - to make law. Here he also rejects the Communist emphasis on materialism. Leftism to this day is often seen as a religion and its agitators clearly often long to be seen as heroic and unmaterialistic. Leftists today also tend to regard consumerism as gross (or say they do as they drive off in their Volvos). This is how Mussolini described early Fascist meetings. Modern-day Leftist agitators too seem more interested in slogans (No Blood for Oil, Bush Lied People Died) than in any form of rational debate. This is Mussolini's famous prophecy about the 20th century in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It came true with the aid of the modern-day Left and their love of big government. To underline that, note that in 1900 the ratio of government spending to GDP in Italy was 10%, in the 1950s 30%, and it is now roughly 60%. And Mussolini's "Fascist Manifesto" of 1919 includes in Fascist policy such socialist gems as (I quote): *The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories. * A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth. * The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor. * The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers. * A minimum wage. * The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions I could go on and on, but perhaps you might be interested in educating yourself. And if you are stubborn enough to try and rebut the actual words of these socialists themselves, please do better than linking to a stupid indymidiot article.

Liberal commentators. My obvious sarcasm flew right over your head. The very nature of intelligence is murky and counter-intelligence is designed to throw up smokescreens. Rarely is it ever "concrete evidence". As for American popularity, one judges a country by the number of people coming and leaving. I still see people risking life and limb to get to America. OTOH, about 15% of the Iraqi population fled from your beloved Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan commission; it was not the Bush administration. I prefer to disregard the source. Seymour Hersh is a well-known Bush-hater. If the left can atack Fox News as "ALL LIES!", then I can disregard Seymour Hersh. Who has more credibility? I do. I never called Iraq a quagmire (which was a windstorm) a couple of days before Baghdad fell. And the Pulitzer Prize is given to liberals because the media is dominated by liberals. How many Pulitizer Prizes did the NY Times get, despite the Jayson Blair scandal which caused the managing editor to be forced to resign. Remember how many Pulitzers the very leftwing LA Times has gotten? Do you know if Dan Rather & CBS getting a Pulitzer? I kid. I know it is only given to newspapers...atleast I think it is. Really? Wow. I wonder what you call WWII, then. A super duper quagmire? ...has a 3 point spread between the two in their latest poll. Most others have a spread of five points or less. Gallup's 14 point Bush lead is so out of step with the rest, I would question it's veracity.

Er, Montgomery Burns is a character off The Simpsons TV show. Where is "over here?" Probably more like Ronald Reagan. He has liberated over 50 million Muslims. How many Muslims has "over here" liberated from tyranny? Remember those sarin-filled shells the Polish troops found? The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. (July 2, 2004) May 19, 2004 NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin . April 26, 2004 Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. Since Israeli and US intelligence saw many trucks fleeing to Syria before the enforcement of international law began against Saddam, what do you think about this? Intelligence agencies throughout the world say that Syria lacks chemical weapons, where do you think these came from? Does Al Qaeda have 20 tons of chemicals in their caves on the Afghan/Pakistan border? May 17, 2004 Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an ]IED June 17, 2004 U.N confirms that Iraqi WMD components found in Rotterdam scrapyard October 1, 2003 Kuwaiti security forces foiled an attempted smuggling of $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country Don't forget David Kay's report where he cited; 1) chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval; 2) reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist); 3) new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin; 4) a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans; 5) long-range missiles (prohibited by UN resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs; 6) documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea, and 7) facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles. Wake up, Han. I shouldn't have to do your hokmework for you. Dunno. Some say he is dead and some say he is hiding in a cave somewhere in the mountainous range near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Been there, done that - and I wasn't overly impressed. Some Canadians consider their American neighbors friends, but some also hate Americans. Canadians are relentlessly indoctrinated by the state-run CBC news to dislike Americans - or I should say - conservative Americans. Candians are also taught to despise Americans by members of the ruling Liberal Party, who has had many members publically call Americans derogatory names, despite the fact that they are Canada's best customer, as they buy 85% of Canada's trade. Not to mention the fact that they protect Canada. It is doubtful that Canada could defend itself if attacked. The Liberal Party has allowed the Canadian military to woefully deteoriate. Well, if you consider France (who blocked the vote to protect the dirty dealing they were doing with Saddam) the UN, then I guess the answer is yes. Arrogantly, France tried to interfere in the USA's right to defend itself, essentially, they tried to interfere with America's sovereignty. Uh no. It was the American people who gave Bush the right - through the people they voted into Congress. Never heard of it. Even a google search produced nothing.

Odd. Makes one wonder why they are demanding to photograph soldier's coffins coming back from Iraq. But like you said, it has nothing to do with politics. Gee, wonder where I get that from? Maybe the Pew Research survey from a couple of months back? Maybe the fact that 89 of the 96 reporters in the Washington press pool voted Democrat in 2000? Maybe the NY Times polling reporters at the DNC where the reporters favored Kerry 3 to 1 and the Washington reporters favoring Kerry 12 to 1? Maybe it was the forged documents on CBS? The AP reporting boos at the Bush rally when Clinton's name was mentioned - when no such thing happened? The 2 days spent on the Nick Berg beheading story, but the months spent on Abu Ghraib "torture"? The fact that every time someone writes a book critizing Bush gets an automatic spot on 60 Minutes? The Sandy Berger "stuffing top secret documents down his pants" story getting buried by the press (The NY Times broke the story on page A-18)? Months of Joe Wilson and the "Bush ignored my no uranium in Niger claim", only to have the story disappear in a day or two after the 9/11 Commission determined that he lied? Wherever do I get this liberal media bias thing? I must be paranoid. The operative word being "hard" evidence. It was a civil case, which means that guilt only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. How would the Bush administration be able to trumpet it from the rooftops and on every corner, when the liberal media would just ignore the story? They ignored the findings of this court case. Do a google search. I think there are 5 or 6 articles about it. Most people have no clue what I am talking about when I bring it up. You linked to a Seymour Hersh article. This guy is the Robert Fisk of American mainstream journalism. His newest Bush-bashing book just got a terrible review (from a liberal newspaper) for its anonymous secondhand sources. This is the guy who last year wrote in the NY Times about the "quagmire in Iraq" about 3 days before Baghdad fell. How about it is not "more or less" a dead heat? I have seen only one poll that had it tied, but I have seen a few that have Bush ahead by double digits. He's also turned things around in the "battleground" states. Like I said above, Evan Thomas of Newsweek said that the media's cheerleading for Kerry would give him a 15 point boost. Just think where Kery would be if the media was fair and balanced. I would guess he would be behind 20 to 25 points.

Ahhh, I see you have your tinfoil beanie on. It's all a diabolical conspiracy. Is Bush behind it? No, because he is stooopid. It must be the EvulGeniusKarlRove.

theloniusfleabag, And also less govt interference in your life. I rather admire the USA's view on govt, which is, essentially, that the role of the federal govt is to protect the country. One of the things that makes it so difficult for European companies to compete is excessive govt bureaucracy and regulations. I see it another way. When the public would find out about these companies "dumping mercury, dioxins and PCB waste upstream", then the people would demand bettter from these companies or they would take their business elsewhere - which means said company goes out of business. Sorry, but I have to disagree. History has shown that it is the left that is fanatical about control. History is replete with examples of leftwingers fanatical obsession with control, crushing dissent, and disarming its citizens. The former USSR, Cuba and China are just 3 examples. Most of the European countries have disarmed their citizens. Switzerland hasn't. Why do you think Hitler ws leery about going after Switzerland? It wasn't only the mountainous terrain. We all remember the dirty tricks the Democrats did in Florida in 2000 to try and keep power. Denying oversea US military personnel to vote, registering dead Indians, registering felons to vote. And we all remember how the Democrat stacked Florida Supreme Court authorized recount after recount after recount after recount - desperately hoping for the result they wanted. Thank goodness, the US Supreme Court finally put a stop to that charade, or it might've went on thru the date for the inauguration. And we have just recently seen the Democrats attempts to stop free speech. There was the lawyers sicced on TV stations who ran the Swift Boat ads, and there was the attempts to get bookstores to not stock Unfit For Command. Then there was the difference between the treatment of the protestors at the DNC and the RNC. The Dems kept them in a cage; The Repubs did not. I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say here. The left's extreme of political control is every vote equal? Did they do that in the USSR? And what is your problem with businesses? They hire and pay people.

You forgot to mention that he is a religious extremist neocon zionist KarlRoveCheneyHalliburton plant who is in the NWO.

Ouch. The numbers keep on getting worse for Kerry. At Bodog betting palace, you have to risk $225 on President Bush to win $100. For Kerry, you can win $175 and only have to put up $100. At Tradesports (future markets), they have Bush ahead of Kerry 66.6 - 34. They also have it at 91.0 that the Republicans will keep the House, and 82.6 that the Republicans will keep the Senate. At the Iowa Electronic Markets (which has a remarkably accurate record of predicting during previous elections), they have Bush ahead 60 - 40.4. For House Control: Republicans Gain 53.7 Republicans Hold 39.5 Republicans Lose 7.6 and Senate Control: Republicans Gain 53.8 Republicans Hold 20.0 Republicans Lose 27.0 Dan Rather is going to have to come up with some more forged documents to assist Kerry.

Han, Look at the "JOhn KErry = JOKE" thread in this section for a better understanding of Kerry's problems.

No one likes war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Would you support going to war against Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII? Why not? There were numerous justifications to do so. 1) Iraq broke the ceasefire conditions that they agreed to in 1991. 2) Iraq constantly shot at American pilots in the no-fly zone. 3) Iraq attempted to assassinate a former US president. 4) Iraq openly sponsored terrrorism. Saddam even paid the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers. It wasn't only Israelis who were killed; Americans were killed too. 5) Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions - the last one (1441) warning of "dire consequences" if he didn't abide. 6) Iraq allowed the Al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 to train in Salmon Pak in Iraq, as Clinton appointed federal judge Harold Baer ruled when he awarded two 9/11 families a $104 million judgement against the state of Iraq. Simply put, Kerry is a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign, is not a likeable person (he comes across as an elitist), flipflops constantly on issues, and is perceived to be very liberal - which doesn't go over too well in the USA. Have you ever seen a candidate have such a disasterous month as Kerry did in August? Nearly every day his campaign had a mishap. Remember his acceptance speech at the DNC? It was surreal. The salute and "reporting for duty" comment. Even CNN was perplexed about him spending only 26 seconds of a 55 minute speech talking about his 19 years in the Senate. Instead it seemed like he talked for 26 minutes talking about his 4 months on a Swift Boat in Vietnam 35 years ago. Really really strange. If the media wasn't so biased in the USA, he would probably be behind by 25 points. Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek admitted that the media (with the exception of Fox News) wants Kerry to win and that they were going to portray Kerry in as good as light as possible and that it should be good for 15 points. Also, if you go to opensecrets.org, you will see that 24 of the top 25 "527" organizations are pro-Democrat. The only Repulbican one is at #9. Despite all the constant bashing of President Bush by these organizations, he is still ahead and I am quite sure, will win. Plus people underestimate Bush. Most liberals (I'm not directing this at you) think conservatives are stupid. Remember how they portrayed Reagan? Same way as they portray Bush. Yet Reagan is considered to gbe one of the greater US presidents. I think Bush is much much smarter than people think he is - despite his pronounciation gaffes - and he surrounds himself with smart people in his administration. He's not the greatest Prez ever (he spends money like a drunken Ted Kennedy and has made govt bigger, which is something that conservatives are not noted for), but it is going to take someone much better than Kerry to beat him.

Eureka, You did humor me...with your comment about it being foolish to call CBC TV a leftist organization. Care to tell us of a conservative commentator on the CBC? Even the liberal CNN has two - Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. Even leftwing newspapers like the NY Times and the Boston Globe each have a token conservative. Considering that the CBC reaches every part of this country, you would think they might have a few conservative commentators, but they, of course, do not. Don't you think that it would be far more interesting (and entertaining) to have CBC liberals and conservatives debating the issues of the day - instead of what we are treated to...2, 3, or 4 liberal commentators sitting around a table discussing issues and agreeing with each other. No wonder only 5% of the country watches CBC! That's pure unadulterated bull. Canada won't even allow Fox News Channel into the country. What dimension do you live in? Cable TV customers are demanding Fox News; they are willing to pay a fee for it. However, I do agree with you that Canadians are more liberal then their American counterparts (Republicans control the presidency, Congress, and the House of Representiaves). I believe there are 2 reason for this: 1) Canadians are relentlessly indoctrinated to accept liberal views by the CBC - which is "free" and is available in French, English, and 8 aboriginal languages everywhere in Canada; 2) Americans are more independent than Canadians. Canadians are much like the Europeans. They look up to their govt to provide for them and guide them through life. Inasmuch as Global is owned by Liberal Party supporters (Global's founder Izzy Asper was actually a Liberal Party organizer and an official in the Manitoba wing of the party, was leader of the Party in the 1970's, and now his son runs the company), and the Canwest Global empire is comprised of newspapers that take a decidedly liberal approach, with the Vancouver Sun for example telling readers in their editorial before the election to under no uncertain terms vote Liberal, I can't believe you would make such a comment. Even the BC Liberal Party is hilariously described by the media including Canwest Global's Vancouver Sun as "right-wing" (the party name of "BC Liberal Party" notwithstanding), mostly because the opposition in BC is the socialist NDP. In reality, the BC Liberal Party is simply less socialist than the NDP, much like the federal Liberals. Izzy Asper spoke of his independence politically, and shrouds his past life as Manitoba Liberal leader by saying "that was a long time ago when Trudeau was the leader". Well, Trudeau was as close to being a socialist as you can get without turning pink. But Asper openly financially supported the Liberal Party, as well as the Conservative Party, and the Alliance Party (many corporations support more than one party just to protect their asses). I must have missed that. All I ever heard and read was "Harper was hounded about his positions on gay marriage and abortion today" from the media during the election. If you read the articles, you would note that the people who were "hounding" him were the reporters. Please warn me next time you write something so uproariously funny. You made me spew my coffee all over my monitor when I read the above. Healthcare that costs only two-thirds of the US costs? Huh? Canada's Tax Freedom Day was June 28 this year - ironically the same day as the federal election. The USA's Tax Freedom Day this year was April 11 - over 2.5 months earlier than Canada's. Canadians pay a fortune for their healthcare. Why? Because it is controlled by the govt and govt is rarely, if ever, as efficient as private business. Consider this: At a salary of $40,000/yr, an American will pay $11,333/yr in taxes (40,000 divided by 12 mths X 3.4 mths). A Canadian will pay $20,000 in taxes. In a 6 year period, that works out to a $52,000 saving ($8667 X 6) for the American - a big pile of money to spend on healthcare. Better results? Good grief. Canada's healthcare is in a serious crisis. Go to any doctor's office south of the BC border and half the waiting room is full of Canadians. My aunt recently got a call from the hospital announcing that they were ready to take her father in to have his operation. Too bad that he died 5 months before their phone call. There are 27 countries in the world that have universal healthcare. The World Health Organisation ranked Canada's Health care system 30th best in the world in terms of efficiency in delivering health care to its citizens. The best research available to date reports that Canada, while spending more on health care than any other universal-access, industrialized country in the OECD, ranks 14th in the percentage of total life expectancy that will be lived disability-free, ranks 16th in infant mortality and 12th in perinatal mortality, ranks 8th in mortality amenable to health care, ranks 9th in potential years of life lost due to disease, and ranks 6th in the incidence of breast cancer mortality. How many Americans come to Canada to be healed? How many Canadians go to the USA to be healed? 'Nuff said! Wrong! From the Vancouver Sun, July 13/04: Snip... Proponents of big government have long been worried that the public sector is shrinking, but once you get beyond the fear mongering, the statistics reveal a different story. While the headlines blared that Canada added 25,000 new jobs in June, a far more accurate snapshot of the Canadian economy is provided when you consider that the private sector actually lost jobs, while the public sector added 32,000. In May, the headlines told us that Canada added 56,100 jobs. Once again, the lion's share was in the public sector, with 43,000 new positions added. Looking at numbers that would make Fidel Castro smile, the Royal Bank's John Anania points out that 9 out of 10 new jobs since the beginning of the year are in government. But even that may not do justice to the degree to which our job creation has become so lopsided. Of the remaining 10%, we have no idea how many jobs are the direct result of government contracts or subsidies. As the heart-wrenching plight of Bombardier - so well detailed by both Paul Martin and Gilles Duceppe during the recent election campaign - makes clear, the jobs created at some of Canada's largest companies are the direct result of government money. From the film industry in BC to auto manufacturers in Ontario to the fishing industry in the Maritimes, new jobs are recorded as private sector, but in reality they are reliant on government financial favours. Since 2000, the proportion of new public-sector jobs compared to private-sector ones has been gaining momentum. Eureka, don't you think a country should actually create wealth, before distributing it? What an ambiguous statement. You been taking lessons from John Kerry on "nuance?" Actually the US has gained 100,000 jobs from outsourcing/insourcing. They've outsourced 300,000 and insourced 400,000 for a net gain of 100,000. You are fearmongering; the same thing that Kerry is doing. Your claim that the job performance in Canada is better than the USA's is too ludicrous for me to even waste my time replying. I think most people know what a military is for. Consider this: Tonga supplied the Coalition of the Willing with 45 troops. A small number, right? However, Tonga has a population of 100,000. For Canada to reach that percentage of troops per its population, they would have to have 13,500 troops. Can Canada come up with 13,500 troops for a mission? Yes. Corporations (and small business) drive the economy and the government does not. Since 1971, the US has created 57 million jobs. Western Europe, with a slightly larger population created 5 million in that time - and most were government jobs. Who has the better economy? The US or Europe? It's not even close. Europe has glacial, if any, economic growth, while the USA's GDP numbers in the last year have been the best in 20 years. The Big 3 (France, Germany, and Italy) in Europe have double digit unemployment rates; the US has a 5.4% rate. You're right. Bash was too strong a word. Let's just say they are very biased against him. After all, he is a conservative and that is a no-no to the CBC. Only from a liberal viewpoint. Oh, it has a lot to do with it. The CBC's views on Clinton and Bush could best be described as thus: Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad. Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad. Clinton allows UN weapons inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq - good... Bush does not allow UN weapons inspectors to search Iraq for eternity - bad. Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad. Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad. Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad. No mass graves found in Serbia - good... Not all Iraq's WMDs found - bad. George Tenet 's CIA screws up for 8 years of Clinton administration - good... George Tenet dismissed after screwing up under Bush - bad. Milosevic in custody (but not convicted of anything years later) - good... Saddam in custody - bad. Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Clinton recession continues after 9/11 during Bush administration - bad. Clinton refuses Sudan's 3 offers to take custody of Bin Laden - good... Bush fails to capture Bin Laden instantly while searching the twisted labyrinth of underground caves in the no-mans land of Afghanistan - bad. Clinton bombs an empty tent in Afghanistan - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad. Quite the statement to make, considering his administration is considered to be one of the most corrupt in American history. He also committed a felony while in office by lying under oath, had sex with his interns, and had a past accusation of rape (Juanita Brodderick) hanging over his head. Yep. Liberating over 50 million people from tyranny is cause to be bashed. Meanwhile, how many people have been liberated by whining, appeasing leftists? They said that Ronald Reagan was a danger to the world. Ask the 500 million liberated people in the former Soviet satellite states what a danger to the world he was. The only ignorant (or insane) person is you. Your homework assignment for the day is 1) find out the name of the Nazi Party, and 2) read about Mussolini and Hitler's policies - before and after they became leaders. Then look up the word Socialist.